Excerpts from an interview with Padma Ratna Tuladhar
What is the main reason that the government and the main opposition parties cannot agree on the matter of a constituent assembly?
The Maoists have now removed the demand for a republic from their list and have publicly said that the formation of a constituent assembly is their minimum agenda. The government did not understand this at all, and instead told the Maoists that since they had forsaken the issue of a republic, it was not necessary to raise the issue of a constituent assembly either. As far as I understand, the constitutional assembly was to be the medium through which the people would take a decision on the matter of the republic. The UML and the Nepali Congress have to realise that in principle the issue of a constitutional assembly is positive, it is democratic, and you cannot possibly oppose it. But it is not practical. The Nepali Congress said clearly that it would not support it at any cost. The UML cannot oppose it in principle, and will have to support it. Some raised the issue that an even worse constitution might be formed after the election of the constituent assembly. Their concern is baseless.

Why do you say this?
? I feel this shows that there is no confidence within the NC or the UML. Otherwise these parties would agree to the constituent assembly, as they would be sure that democratic leftist forces would be in a majority, and the constitution that would be formed would not be to their liking. Neither party believes in itself, for if any of them wanted, they could easily have tilted towards a republic. They were simply not confident they would win the elections and write a constitution they liked.